Re: [PATCH] LockAcquireExtended improvement
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Jingxian Li <aqktjcm@qq.com>
Cc: andres <andres@anarazel.de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-03-14T13:15:56Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 9:33 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 11:11 PM Jingxian Li <aqktjcm@qq.com> wrote: > > Your version changes less code than mine by pushing the nowait flag down > > into ProcSleep(). This looks fine in general, except for a little advice, > > which I don't think there is necessary to add 'waiting' suffix to the > > process name in function WaitOnLock with dontwait being true, as follows: > > That could be done, but in my opinion it's not necessary. The waiting > suffix will appear only very briefly, and probably only in relatively > rare cases. It doesn't seem worth adding code to avoid it. Seeing no further discussion, I have committed my version of this patch, with your test case. Thanks for pursuing this improvement! -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Commits
-
Fix typo and comments related to the recent no-wait lock improvements
- f7ab71ba0c7b 17.0 landed
-
Allow a no-wait lock acquisition to succeed in more cases.
- 2346df6fc373 17.0 landed